Tattva-viveka
NoD--Assignment 9
Babhru Das - January 3, 2006 8:27 pm
Exploring the Ocean of The Nectar of Devotion
Assignment 9
Read Chapter 7 of The Nectar of Devotion, “Evidence Regarding Devotional Principles.” The chapter covers verses 97-117 of the second wave of Bhaktirasamrita-sindhu’s Eastern Division. This chapter of Nectar of Devotion presents scripturally based discussion of the first eighteen items listed in the previous chapter: the ten pravrittis (dos) and the first eight nivrittis (don’ts). I think we may find it particularly productive to read this chapter actively by rereading at least once and making whatever notes seem appropriate. Note in writing any of the verses that mean something special to you (or may have in the past). If you wanted to help less-experienced devotees with this chapter, what questions might you anticipate, and how might you answer them? If you had a chance to ask Srila Prabhupada about anything in this chapter, what would you like to ask?
This chapter has many things we should note carefully and discuss, perhaps more than can be easily covered in a short handout such as this. Naturally, the first few pages address our relationship with the spiritual master and other advanced devotees. There is, no doubt, much that we’ll want to discuss from this section. Another interesting section is “Accepting Only What is Necessary.” Whereas the reference from the Naradiya Purana addresses the importance of accepting only what is necessary for physical maintenance, Srila Prabhupada expands its scope to address spiritual practices as well. Another interesting section is “Giving Up the Company of Nondevotees.” As if to underscore this principle’s importance, Srila Prabhupada adds a third reference to the two given by Srila Rupa Gosvami by paraphrasing a well-known Caitanya-caritamrita verse defining a Vaisnava as someone who gives up the company of nondevotees: asat-sanga-tyaga,—ei vaisnava-acara (Madhya 22.87). As you read these discussions of the different significant items of devotion, think about any questions you might have. Which seem more difficult to grasp, or to practice, and which easier? And (always an important question) why? I will try to assemble a handout with many of the verses cited in this chapter and distribute it as soon as I can.
Assignment
Some things we may find helpful to write about for ourselves and to discuss as a group might be the discussion of living in the dhama (Is this an exaggeration—only two weeks can promote us to Vaikuntha?), and reflection on our understanding (and experience!) of accepting more than necessary. I think that the process of accepting a spiritual master may also merit some discussion. Who can give initiation? How can someone go about choosing (if that’s the right word) a guru? Do we find the guru, or does the guru find us (I’m thinking about Dhruva and Narada)? How can someone know whether he or she has found the proper guru? How would someone know when they’re ready to accept initiation? Of course, you are likely to come up with other points we may discuss. I intend these as suggested places to start.
Babhru Das - January 3, 2006 8:31 pm
Exploring the Ocean of The Nectar of Devotion
Some Verses for Assignment 9
Here are some of the more-commonly quoted verses used by Srila Rupa Gosvami as evidence for the first items of devotional service, as discussed in Chapter 7 of The Nectar of Devotion:
To support the first item, guru-padasraya, which Srila Prabhupada translates here as “Accepting the Shelter of a Bona Fide Spiritual Master,” Srila Rupa gives this verse, spoken by the sage Prabhuddha to Maharaja Nimi:
tasmad gurum prapadyeta
jijnasuh sreya uttamam
sabde pare ca nisnatam
brahmany upasamasrayam
Therefore any person who seriously desires real happiness must seek a bona fide spiritual master and take shelter of him by initiation. The qualification of the bona fide guru is that he has realized the conclusions of the scriptures by deliberation and is able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities, who have taken shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, should be understood to be bona fide spiritual masters. (SB 11.3.21)
To support the second item, sri-krsna-diksadi-siksanam, which Srila Prabhupada translates here as “Accepting Initiation from the Spiritual Master and Receiving Instruction from Him.” Sri Rupa again quotes Prabuddha from the next verse in Srimad-Bhagavatam:
tatra bhagavatan dharman
siksed gurv-atma-daivatah
amayayanuvrttya yais
tusyed atmatma-do harih
Accepting the bona fide spiritual master as one's life and soul and worshipable deity, the disciple should learn from him the process of pure devotional service. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari, the soul of all souls, is inclined to give Himself to His pure devotees. Therefore, the disciple should learn from the spiritual master to serve the Lord without duplicity and in such a faithful and favorable way that the Supreme Lord, being satisfied, will offer Himself to the faithful disciple.
To support the next item, visrambhena guroh seva, which Srila Prabhupada translates here as “Serving the Spiritual Master with Faith and Confidence,” Srila Rupa Gosvami quotes Sri Krsna, who says,
acaryam mam vijaniyan
navamanyeta karhicit
na martya-buddhyasuyeta
sarva-deva-mayo guru
One should know the acarya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods. (SB 11.17.27)
And to support the fourth item, Following in the Footsteps of Saintly Persons (sadhu-vartmanu varttanam), Srila Rupa Gosvami quotes a verse from the Brahma-yamala:
sruti-smrti-puranadi-pancaratra-vidhim vina
aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate
Without faithful adherence to the rules of scripture, one’s so-called devotional service is simply a disturbance to society. One must follow the footsteps of devotees who are strictly faithful to parampara.
Babhru Das - January 19, 2006 7:06 pm
Hmmm . . . it's rather quiet here in the classroom. Maybe I should take roll. 
If anyone has read the chapter, let's see if there are any questions or thoughts brought out by the reading. I have a story to tell about the opening paragraphs of the chapter, but I want to see what others have to say first.
Igor - January 19, 2006 8:12 pm
Hm..I was also waiting for others. But what to do…let us do some sravanam-kirtanam!
So, Chapter 7 of The Nectar of Devotion, “Evidence Regarding Devotional Principles.”
Babhru, it seems that here is enough topics in this Chapter for several threads!
Maybe we should discuss this chapter part by part, for example first part of this chapter is about spiritual master, and then we can have description about auspicious activities and practices.
Part one
Accepting Initiation from the Spiritual Master and Receiving Instructions from Him
Here we can find many interesting points. First point is that sincere disciple should accept spiritual master as representative of krsna. That is very important.
Swami in His sanga wrote about that:
“Sri Guru is described by Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura as saksad-dharitvena. This means that Gurudeva is directly of the quality of Hari, haritvena. What is the quality of Hari? Hari is nirguna, above the three qualities of material nature. In order to represent God one must be of the same quality as God.”
So, sincere disciple should accept spiritual master as representative of Krsna with such understanding.
But there is question – how we can recognize who is bonafide spiritual master, who can guide us to pure devotion? Here is answer – he must realized the conclusion of the scriptures and be able to convince others to this conclusions.
Here I want to note my personal experience about Swami. After associating within ISKCON for more then decade I had so many doubts, so many questions. I must admit that I was not satisfied with answers that I got at that time – my nature is that I am very open and I think that in real spirituality there is no place for “taboo” or “undesired” questions. I got so little answers to my questions. At that time I was very doubtful, from one site I had some scriptural knowledge from sastras, and from other side I was bewildered with examples around me. Then I found Swami’s site and – all answers to my answers were there in Sanga archive! I read Sangas for several hours, discussed topics with my wife till morning, and next day I wrote to Swami. I had that feeling – here is finally person who is realized and more – he is able to explain such topics to others on such unique and wonderful way. I was captured by his writings and conclusions.
Back to text…
From other side- other side of coin – one should not accept for spiritual master someone who is fool number one, with doubtful character etc. We can see today that in modern vaisnava society there are rare personalities that fit in this frame. From Prabhupada’s departure till now, how many of his disciples are here, teaching and chanting Hare Krsna?
It seems to me that institutions begin to make compromises – better to have anyone then nowone. Recently I was speaking with one ISKCON devotee about such topic ( His spiritual master is Rohini Suta Prabhu, he was brahmacari for many years and initiating guru, but he married to his disciple, and still have position within ISKCON, disciples etc) My point was – how this can be right? You think that is right to follow spiritual master who married his own disciple, and at the same time you said that I am wrong for following Swami just because he took siksa from Sridhara Maharaja, and you think that my spiritual master is deviant from that reason?
So we must use our intelligence to recognize who can help us in our search. Here is another very important point that “ to accept such spiritual master is crucial point for advancement in spiritual life.” That is a must. Our first step.
How we can be sure?
Swami gave us answer in Saksad Dharitvena Q&A:
“Those who have used their intelligence wisely and have thus studied the scripture thoroughly will know these things and be well equipped to select a guru to guide them on their spiritual journey back to Godhead.”
Babhru Das - January 21, 2006 3:55 am
Babhru, it seems that here is enough topics in this Chapter for several threads!
Maybe we should discuss this chapter part by part, for example first part of this chapter is about spiritual master, and then we can have description about auspicious activities and practices.
Igor, I agree that there's so much to discuss in this chapter, and I'm in no hurry to finish with it. Even just these first five items could generate quite a lot of fruitful discussion. Here on Hawaii, we spent three meetings on this chapter, and the first two focused on just the first five items. We only moved on because some devotees seemed to want to.
And our discussions here on TV will most likely be very different from those at my home because of differences in the membership. In East Hawaii, most of the devotees who attend are initiated by Srila Prabhupada, and a couple are initiated by Narayana Maharaja. Some of the Prabhupada disciples have a strong affinity for ISKCON because of their attachment for Srila Prabhupada, and some have siksa relationships with Narayana Maharaja. One, Vidagdha Madhava, took harinama from Srila Prabhupada and diksa from Srila Sridhar Maharaja, and he finds his regard for Tripurari Maharaja growing, partly because of our friendship. And I have a growing service relationship with Swami. So we're pretty diverse. On TV, however, we're more homogeneous because of our affection for and gratitude for Swami, and our regard for Srila Sridhar Maharaja. So some things that came up in our meetings at my home may not come up here.
I'll close this post here, and come back a little later. I do have a story connected with the first few paragraphs of this chapter, and you have brought up some points we can all discuss, as will others, I hope.
Igor - January 21, 2006 10:10 am
There is so much to discuss about this chapter. Let us hear what others think about that.
I post several questions regarding guru-tattva on vaisnava controversies section, but it is closely connected with our studding of chapter 7.
Hari-priya Dasi - January 23, 2006 9:08 pm
In chapter 7 Srila Prabhupada refers couple of times to the worship of demigods. First he explains that worship of demigods has been condemned in Bhagavad-gita. Then he warns about having the association of demigod worshipers stating that it would be better to live with dangerous animals. Later he reminds that demigods should be respected anyway.
This is certainly not the most central point in the chapter we are reading. Yet I must say I find sometimes a bit difficult to understand what is the point Srila Prabhupada is making as he writes sometimes pretty hard words about the worship of demigods. And it is not only Srila Prabhupada. For instance one of the ten offences against the Holy Name is “to consider the names of demigods like Lord Siva or Lord Brahma to be equal to, or independent of, the name of Lord Visnu.”
I am naturally inclined to think that there’s one God who has different names and forms. I know him as Krishna, but others might as well know him as Jehova or Shiva and there’s nothing wrong with it. In general I guess I am having a bit hard time accepting if gods of other traditions are in a way taken over and explained on the terms of another tradition. If they are “emerged” into another tradition’s frame of reference.
I kind of understand that Srila Prabhupada and other Gaudiya-saints of past lived in an environment where people worshipped different gods. Polytheism was everyday kind of a thing and therefore they had to conceptualize it and explain it theologically in a way or the other. But what kind of meaning or message this issue has for a child of monotheistic background? What is the importance, which is connected with it?
Thank you again for any answers and comments already beforehand! 
Igor - January 27, 2006 8:43 am
Regarding demigods swami wrote:
(On the path III volume 28)
"Worship of the devas bears the fruit of material piety. This kind of piety does not beget bhakti. Although we find siddhas in Krsna-lila worshipping gods and goddesses, this is part of Krsna-lila, and is not part of the sadhana to enter that lila. If in the consciousness of love for Krsna, one worships a god or goddess, this is different from worshipping them for material benefit. There is no sense in worshipping the devas with a view to attaining love of Krsna. One cannot give what one does not have."
You can find more
Igor - January 27, 2006 5:34 pm
<I do have a story connected with the first few paragraphs of this chapter...
Babhru, we are still waiting for story...
Bhrigu - January 27, 2006 6:49 pm
But what kind of meaning or message this issue has for a child of monotheistic background? What is the importance, which is connected with it?
As I see it, these statements are there for persons unable to devote themselves exclusively to Krishna. Most Hindus, indeed most Vaishnavas have always been "split up" between different Gods. That is why the scriptures speak so strongly about this point. There is a need for it, simply put.
For us, perhaps we could see it as a caution to not mix up our devotional activities with "worshipping other gods" in the sense of clinging to other paths of spirituality. For example, I have recently taken up a kind of asana-practice. I do it as physical excercise, not because I feel that I'm gaining spiritually from it other than perhaps indirectly. Others may disagree, but I feel that dabbling in reiki, shamanism, channelling etc *in order to advance spiritually* could be seen as "worshipping other gods".
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 28, 2006 1:11 am
But what kind of meaning or message this issue has for a child of monotheistic background? What is the importance, which is connected with it?
It’s the difference is between offering pranam and offering puja. Respect, but not serve. After all sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. The message is – focus on your target and ideal. Don’t waste your time. Reject unfavorable.
Babhru Das - January 28, 2006 3:08 am
<I do have a story connected with the first few paragraphs of this chapter...
Babhru, we are still waiting for story...
Oh, of course. Here goes . . .
In 1984 or '85, I was an ashram teacher at the Bhaktivedanta Village gurukula in California, after having been headmaster and ashram teacher for five years at the gurukula I had started in Honolulu. I had long had doubts about my relationship with ISKCON and its guru project. Those doubts began to come to a head just a few months after moving to BV, when the officially designated guru for that area had a meeting with the teachers and informed us that our prime duty was to convince the children to become his disciples. I looked at one of my friends as if to ask if he had heard what I had; he apparently had and was as appalled as I. And at another point, a number of us confronted this official guru about whether he was faithful in his vow to chant 16 rounds. He dodged our direct questions as best he could, then changed the subject to one of his favorite ideas at the time: that only sannyasis could be gurus. When I asked him why he thought so, his answers all had to do with manipulating others, especially women, into going out to "do sankirtan." His claim was that grihasthas were all addicted to sex and that sannyasis were all aloof from it. (His face must have been a little red later on.) When I quoted a passage from Chaitanya-charitamrita that says that sannyasis may also initiate disciples if they're qualified, although gurus were generally grihasthas, he got a little testy. Then I asked him, "Does this mean you have a better idea than Mahaprabhu's when he says, 'kiba vipra kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya, yei krishna-tattva vetta, sei guru haya'?" He had no reply for that.
So one morning in '85 (I think) I was reading Nectar of Devotion to my students at breakfast. This particular morning I was starting Chapter 7. After the first couple of paragraphs, one of the boys, Paramesvar, asked me, "So does that mean that Srila **** has all those qualities?"
I looked at him for a moment and replied, "This doesn't say anything about Srila *****. It simply explains what qualities a real spiritual master has."
"But Srila ***** has all of them, right?"
I knew the moment of truth had come and that I could no longer be coy. "Param," I said, "as I understand it, it's not my service to convince you that one person or another is or is not a bona fide guru. It's my service to help you understand that you're a spiritual entity who needs the guidance of an expert spiritual master. When you understand that, then it's my service to help you understand the criteria for a spiritual master and for a disciple, so you can make your life successful."
"Oh . . ."
As soon as the boys went to class, I decided I must tell his father what had happened, then the temple president and headmaster, so there were no secrets, and so no one would be blindsided if Paramesvar brought it up later. Then, the next time the guru came to BV, I made an appointment to tell him. He later told others that my disagreements with him were based on philosophy, not envy, and that they should try to change my mind. I advised them that they'd have to try with shastra, not politics.
At the end of 1985, after being dissastisfied with what I saw at the "revolution" meetiings at New Vrindavan, I left Bhaktivedanta Village, and effectively left ISKCON. There was never any time after that when I felt any need to go out of my way to comply with GBC dicta. I was happy to cooperate however I could, but I never took their resolutions or "laws" seriously. For confirmation, you could check with the current GBC fellow in San Diego.
Anyway, that's my story. I think the short version is Srila Prabhupada's advice in the first chapter of Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita:
It is imperative that a serious person accept a bona fide spiritual master in terms of the sastric injunctions. Sri Jiva Gosvami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social and ecclesiastical conventions. One should simply try to find a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in spiritual understanding.
Swami, can you tell us where Srila Jiva Gowami makes that point?
Igor - January 28, 2006 7:54 am
indeed most Vaishnavas have always been "split up" between different Gods
Could you please clarify this statement? By definition Vaishnavas are followers of Vishnu and therefore our devotional, bhakti tradition is Vaisnavism. So, if vaishnavas are devotees of Vishnu ( Vishnu tattva ), and more exclusively worshipers of svayam bhagavan Krsna and mahavadanaya avatara Lord Caitanya, how it is possible that “most Vaishnavas have always been split up between different Gods”?
Rama-priya - January 28, 2006 9:13 am
I kind of understand that Srila Prabhupada and other Gaudiya-saints of past lived in an environment where people worshipped different gods. Polytheism was everyday kind of a thing and therefore they had to conceptualize it and explain it theologically in a way or the other. But what kind of meaning or message this issue has for a child of monotheistic background? What is the importance, which is connected with it?
I think that for us, who grow up in monoteistic environment it has some meaning also. Because what I can see the people who even declare that they believe in one God they cannot put Him as the central point of their lives. They worship if I can say in this way so may politicians, film stars etc. I think for us it is important to focus on worsipping this object, who is the most worshipable and don't waste our time for worshipping others who cannot give us bhakti. It also may mean that we should try to approach to the highest treasure, highest wealth, pure devotion and not try to waste our time trying to achieve some material gain. maybe these satements about worshipping gods are to remind us that all this material wealth is temporary and we are cautioned not worship 'material objects', not meditate upon them. Because if we focus on them we'll waste our life.
Y.s
Ramapriya
Bhrigu - January 28, 2006 11:51 am
Could you please clarify this statement? By definition Vaishnavas are followers of Vishnu and therefore our devotional, bhakti tradition is Vaisnavism. So, if vaishnavas are devotees of Vishnu ( Vishnu tattva ), and more exclusively worshipers of svayam bhagavan Krsna and mahavadanaya avatara Lord Caitanya, how it is possible that “most Vaishnavas have always been split up between different Gods”?
Well, if you define Vaishnavas as exclusively worshipers of Krishna, they most certainly are not split up between different gods! But generally speaking, most people who call themselves/ others call Vaishnavas are not so exclusive. They don't even see a need for that. You see this even in Vrindavana today, where Durga-puja is a big thing. Someone might be initiated into a Vishnu mantra and devoted to Vishnu (the traditional definition of a Vaishnava), but also worship Ganesha, Durga, Shiva etc.
Bhrigu - January 29, 2006 10:29 am
Some notes from the 7th chapter
Prabhupada's explanation of the qualities of the guru begins quite dramatically!
The purport is that one should not accept as a spiritual master someone who is fool number one,
Makes one wonder who he had in mind...
As far as the radical statements of the Vishnu-rahasya and Katyayana-samhita re. demigod worshippers that Hanna already mentioned, they are clearly directed towards materialists. In Vaishnava language, these two are often synonymous, since people usually worship the demigods with the intention to aquire material gain in some way. This is true today as well.
I also found it interesting that Srila Prabhupada writes so much about the prohibition against building many temples. I guess the idea is that a temple will not only have to be built (which involves so much work), but also be managed for all posterity. On the other hand, most people need temples, so great souls may make exceptions to this rule, just as that about making many disciples.
I found the following quote from the Padma-purana instructive:
"Within the heart of a person who is overpowered by lamentation or anger, there is no possibility of Krishna's being manifested."
These are so powerful emotions! Devotees shouldn't become hard-hearted, but when these emotions enter the heart, Krishna really is immediately forgotten.
The following statement from the Mahabharata I also found helpful, especially to counter the kind of legalistic moral codes one sometimes encounters within Hinduism:
"A person who does not disturb or cause painful action in the mind of any living entity, who treats everyone just like a loving father does his children, whose heart is so pure, certainly very soon becomes favored by the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
Swami - January 29, 2006 3:19 pm
Haripriya said:
" I am naturally inclined to think that there’s one God who has different names and forms. I know him as Krishna, but others might as well know him as Jehova or Shiva and there’s nothing wrong with it. In general I guess I am having a bit hard time accepting if gods of other traditions are in a way taken over and explained on the terms of another tradition. If they are “emerged” into another tradition’s frame of reference."
It is true that there is one God who has many forms and names with corresponding devotees. However, it is also true that many people worship someone who is not God while thinking that he is. Often in such cases the fact that their object of worship is not God is revealed by the objective of the worshiper. While the highest gift of God is love of himself, many worship with a view to attain something else, such as material gain. This type of worship and the Gods and Goddesses who cater to it should be distinguished from the worship of God with a view to attain love for him.
Careful study of scripture reveals that there is a distinction between God and demigods. Krsna Rama, Narayana, Narasingha, etc are names and forms of God who has the power to bestow love of himself upon his devotees. Whereas Brahma, Siva, Indra, etc. are names of demigods who do not have such power, but readily bestow other gifts upon their devotees based upon power to do so invested in them by God. So in the Gita Sri Krsna says that less intelligent people worship demigods for material gain, not knowing that it is I who give these demigods the power to benedict their devotees.
Even if we are inclinded to honor the worship of others who worship the demigods, that does not mean that we should not distinguish between the two types of worship ourselves. We should and this knowledge will help for fuel our own worship.
Of course as others have pointed out, we do worship demigods and goddesses in light of worshiping Krsna, seeing them as his empowered agents.
Rama-priya - January 31, 2006 5:07 pm
Srila Prabhupada in this chapter mentions that we should offer our respect Tulasi and banyana tree, amalaka tree. I'm interested in why banyana tree is accepted as holy tree and what significance has for Gaudiya Vaisnavism?
Igor - February 4, 2006 7:10 pm
<I'm interested in why banyana tree is accepted as holy tree and what significance has for Gaudiya Vaisnavism?>
Here is interesting link about banyan tree
Bhrigu - February 7, 2006 4:05 pm
Perhaps we can move on, Babhruji? Nobody seems to have anything more to contribute to this chapter.
Babhru Das - February 10, 2006 7:55 pm
It looks as though you're correct, Bhriguji. I apologize for my neglect; I've been down with the flu. (I don't ever remember having been ill on Nityananda Prabhu's appearance day, and I'm not happy about the prospect of staying home tonight.) As soon as I remove the diacritics, I'll post the next assignment and any supplementary materials.